Philosophy Final Paper First Semester ....Read On....

Shapel LaBorde

Intro to Philosophy

Cindy Phillips

Tues/Thurs 8am

Philosophy Final Paper

It is very common to see individuals in a society ascend the social ladder and never look back. These individuals should take a moment to assess the importance of their status and realize their position in regards to helping those in need. Every person that is in proper standing to do so should give back to the community. In developed countries, “charity” should carry the same weight as “duty”. Peter Singer, well-known moral philosopher supports the notion that people who are able to do so should contribute to those in need to the point that we, in respect to marginal utility, give that we too are basically at the same level as the receivers of our good. I will argue that as a people we all have a loan whose interest is forever increasing, thus we are required to pay our debt to society.

            Western culture finds that bare minimum and easy way outs are acceptable enough to reach progress in modern society. This attitude of mediocrity has allowed standards to drop, perceptions of morality to be skewed and the majority of the world’s population to suffer unnecessarily. In 1971, Singer composed an essay titled, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, at the time that the essay was published Bangladesh was undergoing a crisis. The essay is applied to general Western ethical thinking. Singer’s basic main points states: Suffering from lack of basic needs is bad.             If it is in an individual’s power to prevent something bad from occurring while also allowing nothing of comparable moral significance to be sacrificed, then they should do everything to prevent that bad thing from happening. In third world countries, people are starving and their basic necessities such as food, shelter and proper medical care are almost non-existent. People who have monetary means should aid in supporting those who are less fortunate. People who are suffering down the block from you and people who are suffering thousands of miles away from you has no difference in importance in the situation. Distance should not be a factor for someone’s decision to assist a person in need. The advancement and use of modern technology has made traveling or donating to places such as India an easier task. Although it would be common to think that if people are suffering closer to you it makes sense to donate according to distance, this assumption is not necessarily true.

The separation of charity and duty has made service to others a burden or some sort of extra lifestyle decision.  Suffering of any kind is bad and it is every person’s duty to prevent bad things from happening to others. Singer’s position corresponds to Mill’s Utility principle. The Utility Doctrine is the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Singer encourages people to prevent suffering for others because suffering is bad. The opposite of suffering would be good and thus more people would be happy because they have their own basic needs. The question is not a question of difference if individuals are financially stable for themselves and their dependents but now the question is of morality.

For example, Tom and Stacey both work at Schwan’s Law Firm. Stacey notices that Tom donates some of his salary to a Tsunami Relief Charity in South Asia every month. Stacey does not donate instead she rather use her funds and time on buying things that makes her happy during her day off at work. Tom’s donation sums up to an amount that could be contributed by two people. One can assume that this situation is fine because of Tom’s amount donated and Stacey’s innocent pleasures. Tom is not obliged to pay so much to the Relief Charity. If everyone would take a small amount out of their salary donate Tom could perhaps keep a portion to himself or donate to another organization. People in a global society should all play their part. Tom should not have to put out so much money to cover someone’s lack of involvement. Tom donates “more to ensure” but this causes people to think that it is okay not to donate.

Looking back at Stacey, we can agree that Stacey deserves to be happy. Shopping at the mall and going to the Spa are some of the few things Stacey partakes in after a long and hard day of work at the office. Stacey does not donate to any organizations because she believes she works hard and she has to provide for her family. This all seems to be okay until we backtrack and examine the Utility doctrine. Stacey has the means to provide for her family and has also been granted a surplus in which she spends on herself. Stacey should give her money to an organization to help others because her free day off sprees are not providing as much happiness as it would if she donated that same money to help many people. New clothes and personal pleasures do not have more moral significance than saving another person’s life. Stacey has just as much duty and moral obligation to help others as Tom. Tom prevents more suffering by donating more to organizations. He knows that not all people will donate and has means to prevent more suffering although he is not obligated to donate more. This does seem unfair but Tom’s conscience tells him that is better to be unfair than to have people dying.

If one individual is helping a child out of muddy drowning waters while others hesitate and contemplate about the incident, what is the one thing that separates that person helping from the majority that are intently watching. Moral duty. Many of us in society cannot seem to answer our true call to humanity as a whole because we are so intent on society’s traditional opinions. We have forgot what it is to be human and to do things that are simply noble and just. If we change the construction of our moral framework as a whole we can see true progress in society.

As a society we should work very hard to see ultimate results for the whole of humanity. Our work and efforts are seen as down payments for a better and safe future for our children. The question of helping others is a question that must be answered not only presently but also in the topic of our future. The more we let other nations go through poverty, famine and preventable disaster, the bigger we write our check for chaos and tragedy. When everyone is active in the economy it becomes a given that we ought to donate to alleviate some suffering and pain for the next person and their family.

Singer brings up the argument that we should give until we are almost at the same level as those in who we are giving to. This point is a good one. This enforces the ideal that we all should give to one another to be on the same level. This means that if I am working hard and you are suffering, I will donate until we are both at the same level. You cannot suffer as much as you would if I were to turn a blind eye. Most people do not see the main point and meaning to Singer’s approach in this situation. People take it as if he is asking the whole world to suffer which would be impossible.

There is no possible way that the whole world can suffer if we are all giving to each other. As long as one is giving there will always be someone receiving who will reap the benefits. The more I give and the more others give equally the more we all receive. This idea upholds and ensures everyone’s happiness because more people benefit from this cause.

So one now asks the question of what exactly seems to be the obstacle from getting us from this point of inadequate happiness to this point of universal happiness? : Belief versus action and moral duty versus non-mandatory charity. Many people believe that universal happiness in regards to where everyone is fed, clothed and shelter is impossible and unrealistic. People do not act upon making change as a whole thus society never sees and progressive changes. A major change in attitude is needed in order to achieve some success in the dilemma. Giving is an act of receiving. We should give more so that we help others and in turn this helps our selves. There will be fewer problems in the world if we all genuinely work harder at ending global preventable suffering. This will take initiatives to control population, charity from private donors and organization and aid from the government, etc. Everyone individual should to come together in this great cause to take the pledge to upkeep the standard living and happiness of all humanity. We should start paying our loans back today with some interest.

Citations

Singer, Peter. (1972). Famine, affluence, and morality. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 630-636.

Mill, John S. (2002). 12. Moral Philosophy: Utilitarianism. (2002). Stanford Encloypedia